Better BTU is a small group of industry experts who monitor and evaluate trends in an effort to forward the development of the biomass industry. Made up primarily of engineers, project developers and businessmen, we use our connections with others in the business (consulting firms, lawyers, financiers, etc.) to bring objective and informative blog posts.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

State Sovereignty: Mass. Banks on Sun and Wind over Biomass

Last month we discussed New Hampshire’s bold move to grant
biomass projects the same incentives as other sources of renewable energy. This
month we look at a neighboring state moving in the opposite direction.

On Aug. 3rd, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
signed Senate Bill 2395, enacting new energy legislation that has been in the
works for nine months. The new law increases incentives for developing wind,
solar and hydro projects and “includes provisions that aim to manage some of
the drivers of energy cost increases.” (Mintz)

Utility companies will now be required to purchase seven
percent of its power supply from renewable sources, up from three percent
previously. Additionally, the law mandates long-term contracts of at least 10
years, which will help with project financing for renewable technologies.

The move comes after the Bay State suspended consideration
of all biomass energy applications on Dec. 3, 2011. Biomass had been a sizeable
portion of the state’s renewable energy supply, reaching 49% in 2007.
Massachusetts announced plans to begin its “RPS solar carve-out on Jan. 1” and
many felt the Aug. 3rd signing into law was long overdue. The new
legislation also establishes a clearinghouse auction for surplus SRECs until
the state meets its 400 MW solar target. Massachussetts’ goal is to have 15% of
its energy supply come from renewable sources by 2015, with two GW of it coming
from wind.

Biomass escaped having some limiting regulations that were
proposed by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) included in
the final text, but the message is clear: biomass project developers should
move over state lines to New Hampshire.

We can certainly understand Massachusetts legislators’
thought process: solar and wind produces zero emissions; it’s clearly the
greenest way to go. So why not spend our money on the cleanest technology out
there?

Courtesy: The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press.

We support wind and solar as viable alternatives to
landfilling but believe it is only part of the solution. Both solar and wind
are intermittent power sources while biomass is a baseload power source.
Additionally, wind and solar are still more expensive than biomass (excluding
subsidies) and the cost of transmission lines from the oftentimes remote
locations to more urban areas is not usually factored in. The proposed Cape Cod
wind farm, which would consist of a series of turbines in a 25-square mile area
in the shallow part of the sound, comes with a $2 billion price tag. While
producing 468 MW of energy would be an impressive feat for the country’s first
wind farm, it would only provide approximately 3.5% of the 13,300 MW used in
Massachusetts.

We support the growth of other renewable source industries
but hate to see it come at the price of excluding biomass projects. As the world
continues to work to find the right combination of renewable sources to keep
the light on, we think any legislation that excludes an entire section of
industry does a great disservice.

The good news for Bay State biomass developers? New
Hampshire is right next door.

About Me

this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test